Becoming a True Christian Scholar: Some Recommendations, Part 1
Reprinted with permission from As I See It. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com.
In run-of-the-mill conservative Christianity in general and Baptist Fundamentalism in particular there is, and has long been, an indigenous and deeply in-grained distrust and suspicion of highly educated men within our ranks. But this does not in the least reduce or detract from the great service and essential value such men have provided to Biblical Christianity through the centuries. If we may quote Erasmus (1466-1536) on Christianity’s debt to scholars:
Let it be remembered that the heretics were refuted by the scholars, and much more by the scholars than by the martyrs. By dying for a conviction a man proves only that he is sincere, not that he is right.1
In spite of this historic and continuing debt, there has been a parallel perverse distrust and contempt toward Christian scholars (even devout and spiritually-minded ones) by much of conservative evangelical Christianity. I recall well a conversation I was party to some 25 years and more ago with an independent, fundamental Baptist pastor—a man who himself had been unable to complete even a basic, un-demanding three-year Bible institute degree, a deficiency he had not remedied by extensive personal study in succeeding years—in which he told me that “I just don’t trust men with a lot of education.” As though abject ignorance somehow made a man more spiritual and useful to God!
John Gill (1697-1771) wrote a scathing rebuke of this absurd perspective nearly 250 years ago:
Here I cannot but observe the amazing ignorance and stupidity of some persons, who take it into their heads to decry learning and learned men; for what would they have done for a Bible, had it not been for them as instruments? and if they had it, so as to have been capable of reading it, God must have wrought a miracle for them; and continued that miracle in every nation, in every age, and to every individual; I mean the gift of tongues, in a supernatural way, as he bestowed upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost; which there is no reason in the world ever to have expected. Bless God, therefore, and be thankful that God has, in his providence, raised up such men to translate the Bible into the mother-tongue of every nation, and particularly ours; and that he still continues to raise up such who are able to defend the translations made, against erroneous persons, and enemies of the truth; and to correct and amend it in lesser matters, in which it may have failed, and clear and illustrate it by their learned notes upon it.2
All other things being equal—zeal, dedication, faithfulness, opportunity, personal ability—the man with the better education will do the better, more effective and more far-reaching work. Consider the case of the Apostles. All of the original twelve, as far as we can tell, apparently came from what today would be called “blue collar” occupations, rather than from the “professional” or “academic” classes (Matthew Levi, as a tax collector, may be an exception, depending on how one classifies government bureaucrats!). Peter and John were expressly described by their adversaries as uneducated and ordinary men (Acts 4:13).
Example of the apostles
Even so, the Apostles did excellent work in evangelizing Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to some degree further afield. But who was it that planted the gospel throughout Asia, Greece, the islands of the Mediterranean and beyond? It was the formally—and highly—educated former Pharisee and student of the learned Rabbi Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus who became Paul the Apostle. And what was Paul’s testimony in this regard? That, by the grace of God upon him, he labored more extensively, and effectively, than the rest (I Cor. 15:9-10). It is a certainty that Paul’s extensive training in Hebrew Bible and Rabbinics were essential to his accomplishing what he accomplished, and in writing what he wrote—the doctrinal heart of the New Testament, Romans through Philemon.
Reaching back to the Old Testament, let us not forget that when God brought His people out of Egypt, His chosen leader was Moses, a man educated in “all the wisdom of Egypt,” (Acts 7:22). And the leading spokesman for God during the Babylonian captivity was the man Daniel, who providentially was trained at the king’s expense in the learning and language of the Chaldeans (Dan. 1:5).
Church history
In ecclesiastical history, we often see that the highly educated made contributions that greatly overshadowed the achievements of men of lesser training.
Wycliffe, a university professor at Oxford, produced the first complete English Bible, which he could not have done without his mastery of Latin.
All the leading Reformers in Europe, and many of the less prominent ones, were highly educated men, men thoroughly versed in Latin, Greek, often Hebrew and sometimes Aramaic and Syriac, and with a strong familiarity with both classical and Christian literature stretching back to antiquity (which constituted virtually the whole of collective “knowledge” in that era)—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Melanchthon, Beza, even Menno Simons and many more. Without their extensive knowledge of languages and literature, they could not have made their vernacular Bible translations (which gave the unlearned masses access to Divine revelation), nor written their treatises, commentaries and tracts that shook Europe, and beyond.
In the following centuries, highly educated men were the leaders in Christianity. Some were formally trained—the men of the Westminster Assembly, the Puritans in general, John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Adoniram Judson—while others, lacking “higher education,” were self-taught: John Gill, William Carey (who never spent a day in college, yet mastered numerous languages and was in his day acknowledged as the world’s greatest living linguist), and Spurgeon, to note only a few. And even men who began with essentially no education at all nevertheless saw the need to inform their minds in preparation for God’s service—John Newton (the converted slaver who studied Latin and Greek after entering the ministry), D. L. Moody and Gipsy Smith to list some few obvious examples. None of these men decried learning and learned men, but valued their own education and prized what other men’s minds had made available to them through their writings.
The truth be told, Christian scholars of the 19th and previous centuries were as a class far better educated individually than today’s scholars. Consider Henry Alford’s famous commentary in 4 volumes, The Greek Testament. Published in the 1860s, it regularly quotes various texts and authors in Latin, Greek, German, French and other languages, with the unspoken assumption that of course his readers had no need of translation of any of these. That we collectively fall far short of the achievements of earlier generations of Christian scholars is to our great loss, and embarrassment. Our need is not for fewer scholars today—we very much need many more than we have.
I am by no means arguing that education is a substitute for spirituality, or that it can make up for defective devotion or commitment, but I am arguing that extensive education can be a mighty adjunct to spirituality, devotion and commitment in the work of God, and we are desperately in need of a continually-maturing “crop” of new Fundamentalist scholars, if we are to do the work of the ministry as effectively as we ought in this and future generations. Education is not an end in itself, but a means to a very important end.
Douglas K. Kutilek Bio
Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes KJVOism. He has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). His writings have appeared in numerous publications.
- 55 views
Oh really? Achievements by whose definition? Keeping track on the Fundy scoreboard has never brought about anything but Trouble, with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pompous Blowhard. I venture to say that the reason God allows some men to achieve great things is that they have a humble spirit- which was Moses’ main claim to fame- Numbers 12:3. When God chooses to honor someone, it is never for their intellect, it is for their God-honoring servant’s heart. And what about Solomon? Would any of us consider him qualified to teach in our churches?
Jeremiah 9:23-24 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.
It isn’t the wisdom or riches that is the problem; it is when man glories in his possessions or abilities, and gives those things credit instead of the Lord, without Whom we would not have the sense to tie our own shoes. We should always seek knowledge, wisdom, and understanding- but in ways that bring honor to God, not to ourselves. We should not use knowledge as a weapon, to manipulate and dominate, but to nurture and sustain.
In the context of the passage in 1 Cor. 1, you can see the reason God uses simple things to confound- vs. 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. Which is an excellent reason, IMO, for our Fundy scholars to be very, very careful in how they listen to those who have not received the level of education they have. Before honor, humility. (Prov. 15:33, 18:12, 22:4) But 1 Cor. 1 is not an excuse to remain ignorant, any more than James 2:5 is a reason not to further one’s career and pay one’s bills, which is how it is often used, and is just as shameful as elitism.
[RPittman] Could someone please tell me what “Christian Scholarship” is? How is it different in essence from plain, ordinary, secular scholarship? What are the bounds? Is Roman Catholic scholarship “Christian Scholarship?” Seventh Day Adventist?It is scholarship conducted within the bounds of Christian beliefs.
“Christian beliefs” are shared in varying degrees by the groups you mentioned.
I appreciate Doug’s work on this. We need to get over our fear of the intellect and the tendency to assume that other capacities of the inner man are more trustworthy or that somehow ignorance and not thinking are more godly than information and reflection.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Beyond that, there is the Bible warning that “knowledge puffs up”. There can easily become a sort of “intellectual elitism” that can form in the mind of a Christian young person. We’ve seen young people be trained in the disciplines of Christian scholarship and discover they can make more money being a lawyer or in different theological or denominational circles. While I’m sympathetic to the cause that is written about, we seem to be having more trouble producing pastors, missionaries, etc. at this time. These men also need to raise their level of scholarship in the world we live in today!
[Susan R] And what about Solomon? Would any of us consider him qualified to teach in our churches?Does this mean you avoid Proverbs and Song of Solomon in your church? :bigsmile:
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]The comparison I was making is that Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived, and yet I doubt any Fundy church would let him (if he were alive today) speak- he was known for his excesses as much as his intellect. Even in the OT economy, it’s hard not to notice the number of wives and concubines and ask “What was he thinking?” http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif We may enjoy the accumulated and preserved wisdom of Solomon, but we’d never forgive him personally, regardless of his intellectual mastery.[Susan R] And what about Solomon? Would any of us consider him qualified to teach in our churches?Does this mean you avoid Proverbs and Song of Solomon in your church? :bigsmile:
We simply have to keep scholarship in balance with the proper focus, and that is on what we do to bring glory to God, to serve His purpose, and benefit others. I enjoy brainy talk as much as the next armchair scholar, but there are times when I wonder how often some of these PhDs go preach in jails, counsel couples that have been shacking up, minister to drug addicts and alcoholics, help parents with wayward children, visit in hospitals… Knowledge not applied is useless, and if it is only applied to publish books, be looked on as an expert, and feel impressed with oneself, then that person is about as useful as last year’s litterbox.
Could someone please tell me what “Christian Scholarship” is?I don’t think “Christian scholarship” is necessarily distinct in essence (content, methodology, etc.), but scholastic knowledge is processed and applied differently from a Christian perspective.
I wrote an SI http://sharperiron.org/2007/09/28/christian-curiosity] article along a similar vein a few years ago.
[Susan R]There is no class of people meaningfully referred to as “PhDs.” A PhD is an academic qualification, not a status or vocation. If you meant to refer to scholars, why should scholars do any of those things? They could, of course, and that would be fantastic; but there is no reason to insist that they do so. For better or worse, a scholar is not a minister and does not have the duties of a minister. A minister is usually not a scholar. Scholar and minister are vocations; they have separate realms, just as plumber and electrician, or scientist and engineer. If a person is both a minister and a scholar, they have two separate careers, just as if a plumber did electrical work on the side. When doing so, he isn’t plumbing.
We simply have to keep scholarship in balance with the proper focus, and that is on what we do to bring glory to God, to serve His purpose, and benefit others. I enjoy brainy talk as much as the next armchair scholar, but there are times when I wonder how often some of these PhDs go preach in jails, counsel couples that have been shacking up, minister to drug addicts and alcoholics, help parents with wayward children, visit in hospitals… Knowledge not applied is useless, and if it is only applied to publish books, be looked on as an expert, and feel impressed with oneself, then that person is about as useful as last year’s litterbox.
Scholarship - the reception, accumulation, and transmission of Intellect - is useful regardless of what other activities the scholar performs. His or her work allows others to think better, to carry out tasks better, or both. The man who composes an accurate Hebrew lexicon does a service to the Christian community, whether or not he ever preaches - whether or not he is even a Christian. Without scholarship, the Christian community lacks the resources to make informed decisions. Someone has to produce the knowledge that everyone else wants to use. In fact, many of the best scholars are those whose work is not carried out in the service of a particular ideological or ecclesiastical banner. The notion that scholars and educators should focus their work on improving the world (whether in a Christian or secular manner) distorts scholarship into agenda. Education is not meant to make people better or more holy; it focuses on making them more effective (see John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University) in their endeavors.
My contention, then, and I suspect Doug’s as well, is not that Christians have a universal call to be scholars, but that scholarship is a necessary vocation within Christianity, one that ought not be despised or resented. The attitude of resentment, though somewhat visible in all cultures, is pronounced in democratic ones. From the fact of universal suffrage, men and women conclude that they have all the intellectual resources they need to make good decisions. From the toleration of divergent opinions is inferred the equality of those opinions. The pursuit of intellect is suspect, for why pursue something everyone already possesses? The man of action - the practical man, the hero of the democracy - is exalted.
Doug’s point that scholars have had a numerically disproportionate influence on Christianity is fact. A vocation aimed at the production and dissemination of knowledge necessarily multiplies influence. The same is true for public officials, military commanders, and upper-level management at large corporations. The fact that all people are not equal in influence says nothing about their intrinsic value, but that is difficult to grasp in a mobile society. When social classes were fixed, the peasant did not fault himself that he was not royalty, nor did the merchant think that his lack of nobility reflected poorly on his character. In our mobile society, people are made to feel as though they must succeed at becoming intellectual. The fact that my classmate became an influential politician and I did not means that his life choices were better than mine. Influence is viewed as a duty, and a lack of influence is failure. This explains why Americans both revere and resent politicians and scholars - they have achieved a sort of success that the rest did not.
As long as that mindset, inherited from our culture, persists in the church, there will be no healthy use of Christian scholarship. Non-intellectuals will treat intellectuals with suspicion, and the intellectuals will respond by closing ranks and becoming ever more insular. The only way out is a robust conception of calling, the understanding that some people are called to produce information and other people are not. Scholars should be judged by the standard of scholarship, and non-scholars should not think that they must somehow compete intellectually with scholars. If we fail to regard the diversity of calling, we will end up (and in some ecclesiastical circles, have ended up) back in the Middle Ages, where the monk was the icon of the true Christian life, and everyone else felt guilty about not being more monk-like.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Who would you trust more to perform an operation- someone who has read about and researched surgery thoroughly, or someone who has not only received education and training in the field, but has performed hundreds of successful surgeries? That is how I personally view scholarship- it is only as valuable as what has been put to actual real life use.
[Susan R] The context of this topic assumes that we are talking about Christians. Obeying Scriptural mandates is paramount for every Christian, be they a plumber or a PhD. No one gets excused from ministering to real live people because their vocation is to study, research, and publish. Obviously, scholarship is valuable, and by no means am I diminishing that- but Christian service to the body of Christ and the lost is not a vocation, it is a command. There are no blue collar or white collar Christians- we should all be in the trenches.No one is denying that Christians have moral duties outside their vocations. What I am denying is that we can judge the value of people’s vocational work by their extra-vocational activities. All of the items you mentioned - “preach in jails, counsel couples that have been shacking up, minister to drug addicts and alcoholics, help parents with wayward children, visit in hospitals” - are things that ministers do vocationally. Some of them can be done in an unofficial capacity by laymen, of course, but that’s beside the point. If a plumber preaches in a jail once a month, that doesn’t make him any better or worse as a plumber. So, it’s entirely inappropriate to judge the value of a person’s scholarship by his service in the church.
Who would you trust more to perform an operation- someone who has read about and researched surgery thoroughly, or someone who has not only received education and training in the field, but has performed hundreds of successful surgeries? That is how I personally view scholarship- it is only as valuable as what has been put to actual real life use.
[Susan R] Who would you trust more to perform an operation- someone who has read about and researched surgery thoroughly, or someone who has not only received education and training in the field, but has performed hundreds of successful surgeries? That is how I personally view scholarship- it is only as valuable as what has been put to actual real life use.This is a confusion of categories. Scholars are not professionals, and they do not teach technical skills. Doctors, lawyers, and ministers are not scholars; they are professionals (or are treated as such). As medicine terminates in health and ministry terminates in discipleship, scholarship terminates in knowledge. It is by definition not praxis, and cannot be judged by some supposed practical results. Scholars (should) aim only at providing knowledge; they can’t (shouldn’t) tell you what to do with it.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
It isn’t irrelevant- I understand the aim of the scholar as a vocation in and of itself- but in the realm of Christian scholarship, I expect a certain amount of putting one’s ministerial studies to the test with some actual ministering. This isn’t about a plumber being a better plumber because he preached in a jail, but about a theologian practicing good theology by obeying Christ’s commands to be involved in various aspects of ministering.
I value study and scholarship, probably more than you realize- but I’m advocating for a balance of the theoretical and practical, not any sort of advantage of one over the other. They should, IMO, go hand in hand.
[RPittman] My point is that we throw around the word Christian as a buzzword for its feel good effect, not some substantive meaning. What are the bounds of “Christian beliefs.” On the one hand, this would seem to include the RC’s, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. I’m sure that they would say their doctrines are within the bounds.The label “Christian” is applied to way too many things in a way to somehow bless them. I would go even farther than RPittman. I think we use the label “Christian” to legitimize work and products that are of a substandard quality. “Christian” is attached far too often to sub-par products and sloppy thinking in order to give them recognition.
So, I am questioning whether the idea of “Christian Scholarship” has merit if we cannot define the bounds of what it is and what it is not. Why must we attach Christian to everything and have our own directory of Christian businesses, Christian publishers, Christian massage salons, etc. Perhaps we are overly commercializing the term. Are we using it for our subversive purposes? Do we think that it brings credibility to our activity? Is Christian XYZ of a different essence than plain XYZ? I really don’t see the justification.
But to answer your original question “What is ‘Christian Scholarship’?”, I would simply say that it’s research done based upon Biblical premises. “Christian Scholarship” is/should be no different from secular scholarship except that it has a different set of presuppositions. Now of course those differing presuppositions will have ramifications that make “Christian” scholarship different than secular, but from the human perspective it’s no different than the differences between the scholarships of an atheist, an agnostic, and a muslim.
Forrest Berry
[Susan R] Bro. Charlie,You’re still confusing categories. Ministerial studies isn’t scholarship and isn’t designed to produce scholars. It’s vocational training for the ordained ministry. You can, quite rightly, judge the quality of ministerial studies by ministry performed, just as you can judge the benefit of medical training by medical practice. You cannot, however, judge the quality of scholarship by anything other than the work produced. It has no other end. Scholarship doesn’t teach people how to do anything, so it can’t be confirmed or denied by the performance of a skill. There is no such thing as “practical experience” for a scholar. The man working in hypothetical mathematics doesn’t have to invent or design things to justify his research. The distinction between scholarship and vocational training has been made here previously by Kevin Bauder in his http://www.sharperiron.org/2008/01/08/fundamentalists-and-scholarship-p… articles on Fundamentalists and scholarship.
It isn’t irrelevant- I understand the aim of the scholar as a vocation in and of itself- but in the realm of Christian scholarship, I expect a certain amount of putting one’s ministerial studies to the test with some actual ministering. This isn’t about a plumber being a better plumber because he preached in a jail, but about a theologian practicing good theology by obeying Christ’s commands to be involved in various aspects of ministering.
I value study and scholarship, probably more than you realize- but I’m advocating for a balance of the theoretical and practical, not any sort of advantage of one over the other. They should, IMO, go hand in hand.
I think what you are arguing is that those involved in vocational training ought to demonstrate competence in their vocations. I agree wholeheartedly. The goal of training is the effective performance of a skill. The goal of scholarship has no relation to performing skills. Scholars “do” nothing and teach others to “do” nothing, though their ideas may issue in actions.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
With any other vocation, I’d completely agree with you. The difference I see is that in “Christian scholarship” one (meaning ‘me’) can’t separate the two terms- I can’t fathom a ‘non-practicing Christian’ (for lack of a better term at the moment) producing quality Christian scholarship. Perhaps that’s just blockheadedness on my part, but no matter how I slice it, it still comes up peanuts. How does knowledge of Scripture terminate at that point in the life of a believing scholar?
If I understand Susan’s point (not sure I do), it’s that the pursuit of study of something shouldn’t result in neglect of the business of Christian living. Susan, maybe you’re also saying that the “Christian scholar” has responsibility to be more active in Christian service than, say the “Christian electrician”?
That’s an interesting idea. I’m not sure off hand why that would be the case but also don’t know of any strong reason why not.
I think what Charlie’s getting at is that scholarship as a vocation is something a Christian pursues in a Christian way, but it’s chief value is in the work itself not as a means to enabling something else like vocational ministry. So I think he’s saying that a Christian scholar does not have responsibility to be more active in “ministry” than a Christian dry cleaner.
Am I close?
[RP] So, I am questioning whether the idea of “Christian Scholarship” has merit if we cannot define the bounds of what it is and what it is not. Why must we attach Christian to everything and have our own directory of Christian businesses, Christian publishers, Christian massage salons, etc. Perhaps we are overly commercializing the term. Are we using it for our subversive purposes? Do we think that it brings credibility to our activity? Is Christian XYZ of a different essence than plain XYZ? I really don’t see the justification.I’m not sure what your point here is. Are you claiming that there is no such thing as Christian scholarship?
As for the rest, of course, everything a Christian does, if he’s obedient, is profoundly different from everything an unbeliever does in particular ways—and exactly the same in others. Chiefly, we have a completely different ultimate goal for everything we do. That alone warrants attaching “Christian” to it. A close second is that we have a completely different idea of what everything we do means.
But on top of these reasons, since scholarship is so interested in ideas, it would be silly to pretend Christian scholarship is the same as non-Christian or go out of our way to drop “Christian” from our descriptions of it.
[RP] Have you read Harry Blamires’ The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think? What did you think of it?Have not read.
He is quoted as saying “To think secularly is to think within a frame of reference bounded by the limits of our life here on earth: it is to keep one’s calculations rooted in this-worldly criteria. To think christianly is to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man’s eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God.” Sounds like I would not disagree with much he has to say.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Susan R] Bro. Charlie,George Marsden wrote Jonathan Edwards: A Life. What actions does he have to perform to justify my regarding that as useful scholarship? I think that part of my problem is that the activities you listed that supposedly qualify the scholar are all ministerial duties. A scholar does not have ministerial duties, and may not be qualified for them. When you speak of Christian scholars, are you thinking specifically of theologians and biblical exegetes? I’m not, though I acknowledge that in their cases, the relationship between church and work may become significantly more intertwined.
With any other vocation, I’d completely agree with you. The difference I see is that in “Christian scholarship” one (meaning ‘me’) can’t separate the two terms- I can’t fathom a ‘non-practicing Christian’ (for lack of a better term at the moment) producing quality Christian scholarship. Perhaps that’s just blockheadedness on my part, but no matter how I slice it, it still comes up peanuts. How does knowledge of Scripture terminate at that point in the life of a believing scholar?
Aaron, you’ve understood me.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion